memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Performers considered for Star Trek roles
There are a few more to be added, according to Shran and Jörg on this page. These include: : TOS :* Martin Landau (Spock) :* George Lindsey (Spock) :* John Barrymore, Jr. (Lazarus) (added by Tim, 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)) : MOV :* Sir Tim Thomerson (Willard Decker)Tim Thomason called this :* Lance Henriksen (Willard Decker) :* Frederic Forrest (Willard Decker) :* Eddie Murphy (Dr. Taylor) :* Jude Law (Shinzon) :* Michael Shanks (Shinzon) :* James Marsters (Shinzon) : TNG :* Bill Campbell (William T. Riker) :* Richard Mulligan (Nagilum) (added by TommyRaiko 01:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)) :* Robin Williams (Berlinghoff Rasmussen) : DS9 :* James Earl Jones (Benjamin Sisko) :* Eriq La Salle (Benjamin Sisko) :* Robert Goulet (Vic Fontaine) :* Tom Jones (Vic Fontaine) :* Martin Sheen (Luther Sloan) :* Charles Hallahan (Liam Bilby) (added by Tim from Tough Little Ship's suggestion below, 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)) :* Frank Sinatra, Jr. (Vic Fontaine, according to the DS9 Companion)--31dot 20:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC) : VOY :* Linda Hamilton (Kathryn Janeway) :* Patty Duke (Kathryn Janeway) :* Claudia Christian (Seven of Nine) :* Hudson Leick (Seven of Nine) : Unknown :* Arnold Schwarzenegger (according to Jörg. Very interesting, not sure where) (Jorg is full of it, he got that information from here.) A great many of these are very interesting and they should be included with citations, eventually. Additionally, those approached who already have pages should also be included. Off the top of my head, that would include Mark Lenard and Lawrence Montaigne for Spock, and the pre-production pages of Geneviève Bujold and (I think was agreed to be eventually made) David Rappaport. Given that this page could become big, we might not want to place a paragraph for every single instances (although big ones for people like Bridges, Williams, and Murphy may be appropriate). Listing, or small bulletted explanations is good in some of these cases.--Tim Thomason 02:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC) : Dont forget Tim Russ for Geordi La Forge and Jeffrey Combs for William T. Riker. --Alan del Beccio 02:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC) ::I think Charles Hallahan would count as well. He was cast as Liam Bilby a few weeks before his death. -- Tough Little Ship 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC) ::Also, what about those people who played one role and approached to play another? That would include Famek Janssen. -- Tough Little Ship 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC) :::For those performers such as Famke Janssen who played a role on Trek but were approached for a different role earlier or later on, I think just linking them in a list with a brief description should suffice. After all, we already have (or should have) full-fledged articles for them. Something like this, for example: ::::*Jeffrey Combs - auditioned for the role of William T. Riker ::::*Famke Janssen - auditioned for the role of Jadzia Dax ::::*Anthony Montgomery - auditioned for a regular role on Star Trek: Voyager and later for the role of Sek but was given Travis Mayweather instead ::::*Tim Russ - originally auditioned for Geordi La Forge before being cast as Tuvok :::...and so on. If necessary, they can be listed under a seperate category. How's that look? --From Andoria with Love 11:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC) :::::There are different levels: Cast but... died, ill, fired, quit, etc. Auditioned but... not considered, shortlisted, etc. Approached but...refused, scheduling problems, etc. You can't obviously have categories for everything, but some general ones might be "cast, auditioned, approached/offered" with each entry having an explanation of what happened. Examples: ::::::Michelle Forbes was offered a leading role on DS9 in her character Ro Laren, but she declined. (Listing reason and citation.) ::::::Genevieve Bujold was cast as Captain Janeway on Voyager and began filming for the pilot but quickly left the show. (Listing reason and citation.) ::::::Tim Russ auditioned for the role of Geordi La Forge but the role went to LeVar Burton. (Saying, maybe he was shortlisted or merely tried out for the role, plus citation.) ::::: Additionally, just other tidbits like Marina Sirtis trying out for Natasha Yar and instead getting Deanna Troi, etc. --Lt. Washburn 13:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC) In the DVD commentary for the Babylon 5 movie "Thirdspace", Jeff Conaway mentions having been offered one or more roles on Star Trek but declining. Most likely it would have been for something on DS9 or Voyager, given the timeframe. Unfortunately, not much detail is given beyond that. --T smitts 08:17, February 23, 2010 (UTC) I recall an interview with J.G. Hertzler in which he said he's originally read for the role of Dukat in "Emissary" but ended up with the role of the Vulcan captain instead. In the same interview, he talk about a "lucky thirteenth" audition in which he got a role, either the Captain or Martok, implying that he'd auditioned for roles on TNG and DS9 before. Does antyone recall the interview? --T smitts 17:00, June 6, 2010 (UTC) Bujold ref I removed your Bujold reference from the Performers approached for Star Trek roles page, as it is for those performers who were approached for a role on Star Trek only, and not those who were cast. Bujold was indeed cast as Janeway and filmed for a few days, so she was not merely approached. Information on her can be found in the Background section of Kathryn Janeway and at her article.--31dot 01:47, June 20, 2010 (UTC) :I undid your removal of the Bujold reference from the Performers approached for Star Trek roles page. I respectfully contend that the exclusion of Geneviève Bujold from the page is incorrect, inconsistent, and compromises the integrity of the overall article. :This article documents performers who were approached for a role but ultimately never appeared in the cast list for the aired episode. “Approached” in this context of the present article ranges from performers who were trekers but never approached by the producers (Dave Thomas) to performers who the producers wanted but couldn’t get (numerous), who were put under contract but never showed up (John Barrymore), and who made screen tests but failed to make the final cut (also numerous and Susan Gibney most notably). :These examples differ from Jeffery Hunter, who was “approached” for the TOS Captain’s role and filmed a failed pilot (“The Cage”) but whose footage made it into the cast list of an aired episode ("The Menagerie”). In contrast, there is no cast list for an aired episode with the name “Geneviève Bujold” on it. She was approached by the producers (like many others) and put under contract (like Barrymore) but--after a day-and-a-half on set—departed and her footage remains on the cutting room floor. :Compare her experience to Susan Gibney’s (who is included in the article): a performer who made several screen tests (on set, in costume, and with other cast members) but was rejected by the studio. How do the experiences of Bujold and Gibney differ? (Answer: they don’t) :Furthermore, excluding Bujold from the article seriously compromises the thoroughness of the overall article. It is a significant casting “what if” that is presently undocumented in an otherwise comprehensive article—on par with the revelations found in stories of Gibney and Barrymore.--TRHickey 16:28, June 20, 2010 (UTC) The article states that it is for "who have been approached for roles in the Star Trek franchise, but were ultimately not cast". If we want to change the scope of the article, we can, but as it is now I don't think such a description includes Bujold, who was cast but left the production. I would contend that Barrymore (who was cast but did not show up) should not be there, either. Gibney was not cast for those roles, so her inclusion is fine.--31dot 16:42, June 20, 2010 (UTC) ::I'm forced to agree with Hickey here. The article title is "performers approached for Trek roles." 31dot, you are having us discriminate to extreme tolerances what we will allow. That makes zero sense to me. The standard should be "you were approached for a Trek role, but for whatever reason (reason does not matter in terms of inclusion in the article, but should be mentioned in the article), you did not end up in the role." What's wrong with that, and how does that break proper scope of including all information? Honestly, sometimes I think newer members are right when they say we're closeminded to new ideas, no matter how sane they are... --OuroborosCobra talk 18:21, June 20, 2010 (UTC) ::Seriously, this seems as easy as changing a couple of words in the opening paragraph to make it actually able to include everything under the article title. It isn't rocket science, and does not cause article rot. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:40, June 20, 2010 (UTC) :The crux of the matter is how literally to define the word "cast"--is it limited to performers who were approached but never placed under contract or never appeared in the cast of an aired episode or movie. The former definition reflects a legal nuance that is best left to agents, producers and their lawyers. The latter seems a more appropriate definition here: can the Wiki reader see the performer in a role for which they were approached?” :As a more practical matter, drawing arbitrary distinctions between calls-to-agents and contracts and between multiple screen tests and a day-and-a-half on set are boundaries that cannot be unequivocally documented to the satisfaction of an encyclopedic work such as Memory Alpha and are a distraction to the reader. :The appropriateness of the Bujold and Barrymore references were raised earlier in this discussion by Tim Thomason and Lt. Washburn. The case is made that there is a continuum of reasons why a performer does not appear in a role for which they are approached. If it is necessary, as 31dot suggests, to change the scope, it should read: ::This is a list of performers who have been approached for roles in the Star Trek franchise, but ultimately did not appear in the role. Performers listed here have been verified as having been approached for a role on Trek. :Note the change eliminates the contended word "cast" from the scope, which was never part of the article title in the first place. I will wait for a response before effecting said change in the scope or undoing the removed Bujord reference. :On a related matter, however, I think the Dave Thomas anecdote should be removed. In this case, the article states that only Thomas claims that he tried to get a role on TNG but the producers but "didn't want to hear from," making him indistinguishable from any other Star Trek wannabe.--TRHickey 19:15, June 20, 2010 (UTC) :Not to prolong this discussion, but I just re-read the entry for David Rappaport in the article, "who was cast to play Kivas Fajo in the episode The Most Toys (episode)" (emphasis added) where several scenes were shot before the actor took his own life. This tragic example also speaks to the need to apply some flexibility in drawing boundaries between what should and should not be included in the article.--TRHickey 19:40, June 20, 2010 (UTC) ::I've gone ahead and made the change in the opening. The distinction between not appearing without casting and not appearing with casting is a difference for the lawyers over at SAG, not the purpose of this article, which is performers who were approached for Star Trek roles. I agree that Dave Thomas probably still doesn't belong, as it isn't verifiable that he was ever approached for a role, indeed it seems he was not. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:18, June 20, 2010 (UTC) Changing it is fine with me, which I implied in the first place, I was just going by what the article said, not "discriminating to extreme tolerances". It said "was not cast". It seemed to be pretty black-and-white, common sense to me, that it would not include people who were cast. I would have even been in favor of changing "cast" to "credited", which was the intent of Hickey, but the way it is now is just fine.--31dot 00:00, June 21, 2010 (UTC) I also do not appreciate the suggestion that I am not open to new ideas, when I said that "if we want to change the scope, we can".--31dot 00:05, June 21, 2010 (UTC) :::Per this discussion, I re-added Bujold and removed Dave Thomas. Here's the text for future reference: :::'' (born 1949) is a Canadian actor and comedian who was not approached for a role on TNG – rather, it was the other way around. According to an interview in Star Trek 30 Years, Thomas explains he would jump at the chance to appear on Trek, "as long as I don't have to wear a lot of latex like co-star Andrea Martin did when she played a Ferengi ." Thomas claimed that he tried to get a role on TNG, but "they didn't want to hear from" him.'' :::Thomas first achieved fame as a cast member of the Canadian sketch comedy series ''Second City Television, better known simply as SCTV. Among the celebrities he impersonated on this show was TOS star DeForest Kelley. He also shared an Emmy Award and five Emmy nominations as a writer on the show. He later starred as Russell Norton on the hit sitcom Grace Under Fire for five seasons. He has also appeared in such films as Stripes (1981), Boris and Natasha (1992), Coneheads (1993), and Rat Race (2001) and voiced Tuke the Moose in the 2003 Disney film Brother Bear.'' :::– Cleanse ( talk | ) 00:34, June 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Minor edits to the Bujold entry contributed by Cleanse: moved it to the top of the list of Janeway contenders as she was the producers first choice for the role, and changed the phrasing to be less spectulative about the facts of the matter (changed "quit " to "left" and removed the reference to 1½ days as that was how much shooting was done but not necessarily the date of her departure). More details are available in the referenced main article so there is no need to belabor this article. ::Thanks to all for their contributions to this discussion. --TRHickey 01:07, June 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::And moved back into alphabetical order, like the rest of the list. Everything else on the page is in alphabetical order, so should this section be. -- sulfur 01:30, June 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::: I didn't notice that organizing principle to the page. Thanks for fixing that.--TRHickey 04:48, June 21, 2010 (UTC) Article name Is it right to say that all these performers were approached for Star Trek roles? Some of the actors in the lists are people who auditioned for various roles through the normal auditioning process, and lost out to somebody else. To my mind, that doesn't mean that they were approached — they could have had an audition because their agent put their name in with the producers and/or the casting director, who agreed to see them, in which case it would be the agent who approached the Star Trek people rather than the other way around. Would it be better to say that this is a list of performers who were considered for Star Trek roles, but who did not ultimately appear in the role? That would cover everyone on the list, I think. —Josiah Rowe 20:14, July 12, 2010 (UTC) :The word "considered" versus "approached" seems more appropriate to the intent of this article, given the perspective of the recent discussion. To my mind, knowing about people who were auditioned (or screen tested, or even put under contract, or actually filmed but died) but did not ultimately appear in the role are all as interesting to know. I would be cautious, however, to draw the line at the Dave Thomas sort of story, where it is documented that his interest was not reciprocated by the Star Trek people (else this would become a very long article...who amongst us wouldn't have been interested in a part?).--TRHickey 03:01, July 18, 2010 (UTC) ::Yes, it would probably be better if it said "considered". If it did, we wouldn't have had the previous discussion. I agree that this article should be limited to those asked/considered by the Star Trek people. --31dot 03:14, July 18, 2010 (UTC) :Not that I didn't enjoy the previous discussion, but I concur and made the revison. Note that I only changed the initial definition, not the actual name of the article. --TRHickey 03:17, July 18, 2010 (UTC) :::Logically, we should also move the article, but if anyone does that without updating all of the redirects, I will personally shoot them. :) :::I'll look into sorting that out tomorrow or Monday if we still think that this should be "considered" rather than "approached". -- sulfur 03:21, July 18, 2010 (UTC)